I think i know the answer.
I do, too.
At the table with the app solving content at European Championships, I remarked to the Rubik's representative that the official Rubik's app had the best touch interface I'd ever seen (and I've tried quite a few cube apps). The Rubik's representative then told me that they actually got the code from someone else. When I inquired a bit more, I received approximately the following words: "It's not right to take somebody else's name and something they made and profit from it." The guy was nice and well-meaning, but wow. Now I know what the term "cognitive dissonance" really means.
I don't know what app the touch interface came from, so I don't know if that app actually used the "Rubik" name. However, CubeCheater has actually been subsumed into the official Rubik's app as "Solver" mode.
So, they essentially stole two brilliant interfaces with threats to come up with the only decent product I've seen from them in a while.
Considering how much it costs to develop such good app interfaces (thousands of dollars) and those original developers probably put a lot of their own time into it, I do see it as stealing, even if those developers did get some compensation. (I don't know if they did, but considering the CubeCheater story I don't think it was very voluntary for Eric.)
I know it's hard for Rubik's, but I would rather that they innovate, instead of wielding their vague trademark (about an intrinsically interesting mathematical puzzle) whenever they feel like it.
I originally felt a little iffy about Eric Faller, but that's probably because he wasn't in the community – and I'm quite sorry for him now. If Rubik's ever threatens a standing member of the community who comes up with a good product, I hope we can raise such a ruckus that they let us do the right thing. If I ever make an app myself, that is where my trust will lie.
Disclaimer: I don't really know anything besides what's on the CubeCheater site and what I saw and heard in Hungary. But this is what it seems like to me. It agrees with the company's standard behavior with the trademark, as is sort of being discussed in this thread.